I thought you’d find Stephen Bryen’s piece at Asia Times, comparing Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk Oblast to the Battle of the Bulge near the end of World War II interesting:

Some Weapons and Strategy readers say that there is a strong resemblance between the current Kursk battle and the Battle of the Bulge, which raged in December 1944 and January 1945. It is a topic worth exploring.

Consistent with the advice of one of my college professors, here is the first “however”:

The Kursk offensive is quite tiny when compared with the massed armies in the Battle of the Bulge. At the start of Kursk the Ukrainians committed perhaps 1,000 troops and a modest complement of armor and artillery. Ukraine also used air defenses, including mobile patriot batteries, electronic warfare assets and a large number of drones.

Likewise, on the Russian side, there were only territorial units that did not have armor and lacked modern anti-tank weapons. As this is written the Russians have brought up Chechens and Wagnerites (now part of the regular Russian army). There are reports that larger forces are also on their way to Kursk, drawn from reserves and not from units fighting elsewhere in Ukraine.
As of August 11, most of the incursion has been “stabilized” meaning that, for the most part, Ukrainian assaults are being countered successfully.

The current battle scene in Kursk does not resemble the Bulge. The Nazi aim was to break the US and British armies, to split them, and drive to the sea. The Ukrainian aim is to hold Russian territory for as long as possible. In both cases the aim was negotiations, but the Nazis hoped to defeat the Allies while the Ukrainians have no such hope regarding the Russians.

We do not yet know if Ukraine will be able to sustain the Kursk attack. If the country throws in more forces it will not have the advantage it enjoyed in the first phase of the battle. So the Ukrainian gamble is just that and carries strategic and political risk. In that sense, the Battle of the Bulge and Kursk share a common theme.

I have no idea what the strategic significance on Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory is and I doubt that Dr. Bryen does, either. Maybe it is, as he says, to bring Russia to the bargaining table. Maybe it’s something else. Maybe it’s to encourage the West to provide more military and other assistance to Ukraine.

My concern with it is the possibility that the strategic intent is to draw NATO forces directly into Ukraine’s war with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, presumably in response to a brutal counter-attack by Russia.

Update

Here are some of the possible objectives of the invasion I’m reading about:

• disrupt supplies to Donbas
• impel the Russians to redeploy force from elsewhere to Kursk
• open attack routes for drones
• test new tactics

in addition to the two mentioned above.

In the last few months quite a number of restaurants near here including several from which we have ordered regularly have closed. I was shocked to learn that an Indian restaurant three blocks from here from which we ordered at least once a month closed last week.

Restaurants tend to be fairly volatile, i.e. they open and close frequently, but these were well-established restaurants that had survived the lockdowns and to all appearances were doing as much business as they ever had. I honestly have no idea why so many are closing.

In the history of the Academy Awards only fifteen motion pictures have received nominations for all of the competitive acting awards (Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor). None of those has been graced with all four but two have received three (A Streetcar Named Desire and Network).

For Streetcar Vivien Leigh, Karl Malden, and Kim Hunter all received awards.

The very first movie in which actors were nominated in all categories was My Man Godfrey. It won nothing include Best Picture for which it was also nominated. Sunset Boulevard and American Hustle got shut out, too.

The staff of Foreign Policy speculates about what should be expected from the foreign policy of a prospective Harris Administration. The area in which it could differ from that of the Biden Administration is probably policy towards the Middle East, Israel in particular:

In her public statements, Harris has placed more emphasis on—and shown more empathy toward—Palestinian suffering in Gaza. That is consistent with media reports starting late last year that she has pushed the White House to express more concern about the humanitarian crisis. The Biden administration has disputed those reports.

During a speech in Dubai in December, she revisited the brutal nature of the Hamas attacks that sparked the war, but she also urged Israel to do more to protect civilians in Gaza. In a speech in Selma, Alabama, in March, she called for an immediate cease-fire to allow for the release of hostages and for aid to flow into Gaza. Though her remarks were consistent with the administration’s diplomatic efforts to broker a cease-fire deal, they were met with thunderous applause from the crowd due to her impassioned delivery.

While her policy on the conflict is largely likely to be one of continuity, she may strike a different tone than Biden, said Frank Lowenstein, the former special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the State Department. This perception has been echoed by those who have spoken to her personally about the war.

During a meeting with Muslim community leaders at the White House on April 2 to discuss the administration’s Gaza policy, Zaher Sahloul, a Syrian American physician who worked in Gaza on a medical mission earlier this year, said that Harris was moved by their presentation about the impact of the war on people in Gaza and approached him after the meeting to ask for more reports from the ground about the humanitarian situation. “I felt that she projected empathy,” Sahloul said. “She clearly cared about the civilian plight in Gaza.” And while she didn’t diverge from Biden on policy, her articulation of the U.S. approach to the conflict was clearer and more detailed, he said.

In public remarks following her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, Harris struck a forceful tone. Although she reiterated the Biden administration’s stance that Israel has the right to defend itself, she said that how it does so matters. Speaking about Gaza, she said, “We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent.”

I think there are several possible directions that her foreign policy might take including:

• It could be closely aligned to that of the Biden Administration. That is clearly the vision being articulated in the article.
• It doesn’t really matter what she thinks since foreign policy under the Harris Administration would be largely under the control of the State Department
• It could be completely different, almost anything

I suspect this is another area in which we’ll need to elect her before we can find out what she believes.

There is seemingly no end to the advice that VP Harris and Gov. Walz are receiving from election advisors in the media. At Vox.com Christian Paz recommends abandoning soundbyte attacks on Trump and Vance in favor of something more positive:

The attacks may be sticking — hardening the preexisting views many Americans have toward Trump, Vance, and the national Republican brand.

But they’re no substitute for a forward-looking, positive case in favor of Harris and Walz, according to new polling conducted by the Democratic firm Blueprint and shared with Vox. What must come next is an effort to define Harris by reintroducing the electorate to her track record before becoming vice president and leaving behind the politics and acrimony of the Trump-Biden era.

The new report reveals an interesting and slightly counterintuitive sentiment among American voters at this point in the race. Voters are relieved that there is a new option available for them to pick and feel a “breath of fresh air” — but they don’t really know Harris.

Specifically, beyond hearing attacks on Trump and Vance, they want to hear a positive, uplifting platform from Harris. They are ready for optimism, to hear why she wants to be president, and — even more fundamentally — just learn who she is. Plenty of voters have heard of the vice president, but many don’t know much about her past, her accomplishments, and her life experience, Blueprint’s chief pollster Evan Roth Smith told me.

At Financial Times Chris Giles counsels nearly the opposite:

Some things are unambiguous, among them that Kamala Harris is a better Democratic presidential candidate than Joe Biden. And the US election is still very close. Other matters such as the economic record of the Biden administration are subject to nuance and ambiguity ill-suited to a vicious presidential campaign. Harris should not put the economy at the centre of her campaign.

It is not that the Biden administration’s economic record is poor, but it is complicated. For a start, the public are not convinced by US economic strength. Responding to the long-running University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, even Democrats barely report above average confidence, while the period of high inflation pushed the reading well below long-run norms for independent voters and Republicans.

He goes on to explain that Americans really don’t like inflation.

Walz was the right pick. Walz was the wrong pick. VP Harris should quickly redefine herself. She shouldn’t redefine herself at all. Whatever the advice you can probably find someone giving it.

I will refrain from offering any advice. Although I am certain that some of those expressing jubilance are genuinely delighted that Kamala Harris is 2024’s Democratic standardbearer, I suspect that there is also a certain amount of relief that the 2024 election will not be a rerun of the 2020 election with a less energetic, less mentally capable Joe Biden at the top of the ticket.

This is local news but you may not have heard of it. At WGN Jenna Barnes reports:

DOLTON, Ill. — Mayor Tiffany Henyard’s grip on the reins of Dolton is loosening after the village’s board of trustees voted to freeze spending on village credit cards Monday night.

“That was the main goal — To cut off her access and other operators in the municipality,” said Burt Odelson, one of the attorneys representing the Village of Dolton’s Board of Trustees.

According to attorneys representing Dolton’s trustees, moving forward, expenses on village credit cards will be limited to those approved by the board for the village’s Director of Administrative Services to make.

“This village has so many people with so many credit cards, they’re swiping like crazy and that’s why it had to come to a complete halt,” said Michael McGrath, another attorney representing Dolton’s trustees. “There’s thousands and thousands of dollars for Amazon purchases, for PayPal, for Target, for Walgreen’s, for Jewel [Osco] in the hundreds and thousands of dollars.”

McGrath said that a snapshot of just five-to-six months of spending was revealed in the last couple of weeks by Henyard’s top aide, Keith Freeman, who is now cooperating with the village’s board of trustees.

Freeman has pleaded not guilty to a federal bankruptcy fraud charge and is considered by some trustees to be a potential whistleblower.

At present this is our favorite soap opera. We can hardly wait to tune in to WGN News at 9 to learn the latest development.

I think that black voters expect a certain amount of corruption in government but there is a level of blatant corruption that is simply too much and the people of Dolton have apparently reached it. Dolton is a small town of about 20,000 people, 20% of whom are in poverty. Its population is 90% black. The town is starting to sell off assets to pay its bills.

Update

We can’t wait for the next installment. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot will present her findings on the situation with Dolton’s government today.

Speaking of weird, in 1790 90% of the labor force in the United States were dedicated to farming. By 1850 that percentage had declined to about 70% and by 1900 it was less than 50%.

These are the occupations of my ancestors during that period:

Lawyer
Saloon owner
Vaudeville entertainer
Judge
Chiropractor
Engineer
Butcher
Milk broker
Cooper
Laborer
Cigarmaker
Cowboy (as in cattle drives on trails in the West)

That’s pretty different from normal people.

Then we had Biden vs. Trump. Then Not-Biden vs. Trump. Now we have Not-Biden and Not-Vance vs. Trump and Vance.

IMO Gov. Walz was a pretty good pick for VP Kamala Harris’s running mate. He balances her in many ways (race, gender, experience) while being quite compatible with her ideologically. I doubt that he will be as much help in carrying Midwestern states as some are speculating. Minnesota has been safely Democratic since 1976. That is quite different from other Midwestern states. He also brings more firsthand knowledge of China than any president or vide president since, I guess, Herbert Hoover.

I have no idea who will be elected president and I doubt that anyone else actually does, either. The election will be an interesting test several things including the importance of getting out the base.

In a piece at The National Interest Daniel L. Davis has words of caution for the United States:

Israel has an obligation to take actions that ensure its security. If Israeli leaders take risks that result in more attacks against Israel, they must be prepared to deal with that situation. What should not happen, however, is for Tel Aviv to expect the United States Armed Forces to fight alongside the IDF. Washington should not be a party in engaging in military operations that run counter to its national security objectives and could draw it into a new Middle Eastern war.

There is nothing for us to gain and everything for us to lose in fighting a war against Iran. It should be a priority for the White House only to risk losing American servicemen and women if U.S. security is put at risk, not because a foreign government, regardless of how friendly, takes action that is likely to prompt an enemy military response. We must stop choosing war—or one day, it may cost us more than we can imagine.

The second paragraph in particular pretty much encapsulates my views.